July 20, 1916 
LAND & WATER 
13 
to fight and at least half of the rest of the able-bodied 
subjects, male and female, on subsidiary activities 
directly subserving the ends of the fighting force. It is 
this new condition which has given an entirely new value 
to the process of siege. 
The shortcomings of Allied policy in this enormous 
matter have been so often demonstrated that it would not 
now be worth while dwelling on the subject except for 
this ; that it is not at all clear whether even now the 
importance of the issue is realised by the Allied govern- 
ments. For note how the memorandum proceeds. No 
sooner had the innocent Allies adopted the Declaration 
of London, than those cunning devils, " the Germanic 
Powers put forth all their ingenuity to reopen a channel 
for supplies." Certainly an astonishing and wholly un- 
expected development. What with one thing and another 
the Declaration was unequal to the strain' and the Allied 
Governments started tinkering with its rules to meet the 
conditions— and with admittedly lamentable results. 
So now we have all come to the conclusion that we must 
confine ourselves " simply to applying the historic and 
admitted rules of the law of nations " ! We have got 
back, in other words, to the point from which we should 
have started. But are we starting from it even now ? 
The Order in Council of March nth, 1915, still stands a 
stumbling block to international lawyers, and a scandal 
to those who wish to see " our admitted and historic 
rights " exercised to the full. It was the avowed pur- 
pose of the Order in Council " to prevent commodities 
of any kind from reaching or k^aving Germany." For- 
tunately, the historic and admitted rules of naval war 
provide a most effective method of achieving this object. 
Its efficiency is twofold. It justifies the Power that 
enforces it in the seizure of everything which seeks to enter 
or leave the enemy's ports, and, if neutrals are rash 
enough to take a hand in the forbidden game, their ships 
pay the same penalty as the goods they carry. 
These means can be legally employed by the Power 
that proclaims the blockade and has the necessary sea 
strength for enforcing it. Our practical and very legal- 
minded cousins, the Americans, developed one very 
jmportant extension of the law of blockade as it was left 
to us by Lord Stowell — and I observe tliat tlie Order in 
Council that announces the abandonment of the Declara- 
tion of London says, amongst other things, that " the 
principle of continuous voyage or of ultimate destination 
shall be applicable both in cases of contraband and of 
blockade." We seem now to be proceeding against 
German trade and trade intended for Germany partly 
under the accepted rules that govern contraband, partly 
under the Order. But the validity of this Order has 
never been admitted by American jurists and, in view 
of the fact that part at least of our sea action may be 
held to be illegal, the Foreign Office note of July 7th 
includes a concession that seems most extraordinary. 
For after solemnly declaring that the Allied warships arid 
the prize courts will conform to the admitted principles 
of the law of nations, and will observe the international 
conventions with regard to the laws of war and abstain 
from any threatening of the lives of non-combatants or 
interference with neutral property, we undertake that, 
should we by the action of our fleets " cause damage 
to the interest of any merchant acting in good faith, 
[we] will always be ready to consider his claims and 
grant him such redress as may be due." 
Surely once it is admitted that the doctrine of con- 
tinuous voyage or ultimate destination — so far as it is 
already made to apply under our present procedure — ■ 
can be applied under the proclamation for blockade, 
why should such a proclamation be delayed any 
further ? The argument that it is inconsistent with our 
previous conduct is knocked on the head by this belated 
admission that our adoption of the Declaration was 
as great a political mistake as it was obviously illegal 
and ultra vires. If we are so keen on our historic rights, 
let us announce and act on the announcement that all 
enemy property found at sea is lawful prize ; let us 
proclaim a blockade of Germany and enforce the 
penalty that not only all goods, but all ships that attempt 
to break that blockade are forfeit. If we do nothing 
else we shall have our exercise of sea command on 
an intelligible basis, and what is not less important, 
international lawyers will knovv where they stand. 
fARTHUR Pollen 
British and Metric Systems 
By Sir Henry Gunynghame, K.G.B. 
THE following description of the British and 
metric system of weights and measures, is not, 
of course, intended as more than a presentation 
bf their leading features for the assistance of 
those who desire to form an opinion upon their relative • 
utility. iTn the adoption of a system, scientific accuracy 
and popular convenience are, of course, the two most im- 
portant features. Hence then it is necessary to consider 
how the various standards are to be fixed, what is the 
best system of division and arrangement of the units, 
and how the units of one sort of measure, such as say 
the yard, are to be conveniently connected with the 
units of another, such as the pound or the gallon. The 
antiquarian aspect of the question is intricate and 
interesting, but far too complicated to be dealt with here. 
Our unit of length is the yard. 220 yards make a 
furlong or (furrow-long) 8 of which make up a mile. 
These measures were derived from the old agricultural 
system of measurement. A square furlong is 10 
acres, of which therefore 64 make up a square 
mile. 
If our measures of volume, for use for liquids or for 
granular solids, had been scientifically constructed, they 
would, of course, have been based on our measures of 
length. A cubical box measuring a standard yard 
every way would have been our standard of volume. In- 
stead of this the gallon has been adopted and we have 
2 gallons to a peck, 4 pecks to a bushel, 3 bushels to 
a sack, and 8 bushels to a quarter. Again, the gallon 
is divided into 4 quarts, or 8 pints, or 160 ounces. The 
ounce is again divided into 8 fluid drachms, each drachm 
contains 60 minims. 
A " sack " is therefore a volumetric measure, and the 
weight varies with the contents. A sack of corn weighs 
180 lb., a sack of potatoes weighs 160 lb. By statute a 
sack of coal weighs 2 cwts., and hence in the coal trade a 
sack is a measure of weight and not of volume. 
The clumsy connection between the linear and super- 
ficial measure and the want of connection between the 
linear and volumetric measure is a great drawback. 
For how convenient it would have been if a gallon 
measure could have been made out of a cubical 
box measuring, say, 6 in. every way instead of about 
6| in., as at present. How easy would be the con- 
struction of bins or carts to contain corn or other agri- 
cultural produce which is sold by measure if some simple 
relation existed between linear dimensions and volume. 
How easy it would have been to see how many gallons 
a water cistern held, if only you needed to multiply to- 
gether the length and breadth and height in inches and 
then divide by some simple number instead of by 277.2 as 
at present. 
It is, however, not till we come to measures of mass and 
weight that the real confusion begins. For British Acts 
of Parliament have failed to recognise the distinction 
between mass and weight which was first explained by 
Galileo and forms the basis of the modern theory of 
mechanics. The mass of a body is the quantity of matter 
in it and it is impossible to alter the mass of a quantity 
of matter by burning or melting or any chemical process. 
Given a jiound mass of matter and you may melt it, or 
turn it into gas. or add other bodies to it, or heat it how 
you will, and you still have a pound of it, no more, no 
less. But the weight of that mass-pound, that is to say 
the pull given to it by the gravitational action of the 
earth varies at every place of the earth's surface. Now, 
by the law of nature this earth-pull is always proportional 
to the mass of the body pulled. Hence we can always 
estimate tlie mass of a body by weighing it, that is, if we 
weigh it, in the same place (other refii/jments as to tern- 
